1. DECISION The above cited cross appeals have been filed against the order of the learned Junior Labour Court, Multan dated 7th November 1974, whereby Rahim Shah, Ghulam Muhammad and Fateh Muhammad workmen, hereafter mentioned as the respondents were re-instated in service of the Fazal Cloth Mills Limited Muzaffargarh hereinafter mentioned as the appellant --Management after their dismissal from service on account of misconduct of remaining absent from duty without leave for more than 10 days.
2. An application being filed by the respondents under section 25.A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the learned Lower Court after recording the parties evidence found that the appellant-Management changed an Enquiry Officer without making out any justification and acted upon the enquiry report submitted by the second Enquiry Officer. He found that the domestic enquiry against the respondent was not carried out in straight forward manner and on that score the order of the termination in question was absolutely invalid. While re-instating the respondents, he directed the intervening period to be treated as leave without pay. The respondents have moved this Court for bring directed to be here instated unconditionally while the appellant- Management has challanged the order to restore the original order of dismissal passed against the respondents. The present order will dispose of ail the three appeals.
3. I have gone through the record of the learned lower Court and find that the first Enquiry Officer appointed by the appellant-Management was dropped by it without any valid Notification. No reason what so ever, is traced out from the record of the domestic enquiry except for exercise of the personal discretion of the applicant-Management. It is further pertinent to note that out of the respondents Rahim Sxah objected to the appointment of second Enquiry Officer, named Khaliq Dad, but his request was' rejected without any suitable reason. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the respondents were prejudiced in the matter of their defence and the domestic enquiry could not be held as above-board. Any direction at this stage for a fresh enquiry could not meet the ends of justice and may be calculated to be a practice on the personal will of the appellant --Management in giving decision in the matter. Since the respondents are found to have been carelessly prejudiced in the enquiry and the same being held as absolutely invalid by the learned lower Court there was no scope for any direction to hold any fresh enquiry or to deprive the respondents of the back benefits. Under the circumstances the appeals filed by the respondents are accepted and that of the appellant-Management dismissed.